I bought about 50 USD of Classic HOE books on the recommendation of others on this forum. The general consensus was that if they couldn't or didn't offer crunchy equivalents to Reloaded (they haven't been converted and may never be by PEG) they did have history that couldn't have been put in a small HOER format.

So far I haven't been able to spend much time reading the books but I have already come across two instances that completely change canon from Classic to Reloaded.

First, I read on this forum it would be a good idea to get Waste Warriors because it had a lot of new weapons that couldn't make it into the HOER book. Since that time it has been posted that the USA and CSA did not have assault rifle equivalents (in Reloaded). This is not the case in Classic. In Waste Warriors there are several assault rifles listed. Which is right? (the excuse offered is that this is an alternate timeline that wouldn't have developed these weapons...horse pucky...the assault rifle is just too useful to not have been discovered)

Next while reading Iron Oasis I discover that in Classic spook juice was created by Doc Schwartz just months before Judgement Day. In reloaded it was created out of the oil embargo of 1973 and was prevalent worldwide. Which is canon? No biggy, right? Wrong? If spook juice was ubiquitous before the war then vehicles wouldn't need conversion. If the converse is true then it is unlikely that any caches of hidden spook juice would be found outside of "civilization" (meaning Junkyard).

I know its my game so please don't tell me that I can play it how I want to. What I want to know is why I was told that buying the Classic books was a good idea? I don't know now which history to trust; which is canon. I guess Reloaded, but I have to say I feel ripped off.

I have barely read 30 pages in the Classic books and I have already discovered two very distinct differences between the canon of the two versions. If I read another 30 pages will I discover two more? How many will I discover if I read all the Classic books? What was the point of buying these books if the history is so divergent?

Where are you getting that the USA and CSA didn't have assault rifles? There are 11 different rifles listed in the gear section, 4 of which directly have the initials SA or NA as part of their designation.

True, there aren't as many varieties than in the 15+ books of Classic, but how many different rifles do you really need? They all deal 2d10 or 2d8 damage, they either have a RoF of 1 (sniper-style rifles) or 3-4 (rifles built for autofire), and they all have relatively double the range of a comparable pistol/submachine gun.

Regarding the spook juice issue--yes, this is a change, but one that makes sense. The world had come to rely on ghost rock more and more prior to the Big Bang, so it makes sense for there to be ghost rock/spook juice fueled autos in the Wasted West. In fact, it says in HoER (p. 56) that spook juice is the default fuel. The "Hooch Converter" add-on lets you use alternate fuels, such as ethanol or normal gasoline.

Without trying to offend here, I feel like you're making mountains out of molehills with these elements. They're minor cosmetic changes that make sense after 10+ years of retrospect. If everything was exactly the same, what would be the point of Reloading the game in the first place? Besides you found two relatively minor errors across two books....that's a pretty damned good ratio, from a pseudo-professional editing standpoint.

The Classic PDFs are useful in terms of inspiration and idea generation, more than direct translation. Don't go to Waste Warriors to pull stats directly for the game--use it to generate plots based on elements like the new UN or the Prowling Tigers, which were mentioned (but not detailed deeply) in the Reloaded edition. Don't use Iron Oasis as a perfect history of Junkyard and the Wasted West--the history books have been all but vaporized. Hell, maybe Doc Schwartz really does think he created spook juice, or maybe he had the first real refinery after the bombs dropped. In a post-apoc game, the past is up to interpretation (and misinterpretation) simply due to lack of communication.

I'm sorry you feel ripped off, but there are a ton of useful things in those books well worth raring even if they don't "exactly" line up with the current rules-set or with a pre-established timeline. Try looking at them more holistically, rather than as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that don't precisely fit.

Hellfire6A wrote:Next while reading Iron Oasis I discover that in Classic spook juice was created by Doc Schwartz just months before Judgement Day. In reloaded it was created out of the oil embargo of 1973 and was prevalent worldwide. Which is canon? No biggy, right? Wrong? If spook juice was ubiquitous before the war then vehicles wouldn't need conversion. If the converse is true then it is unlikely that any caches of hidden spook juice would be found outside of "civilization" (meaning Junkyard).

WHy do we still have diesel vehicles in the modern age when petroleum rules the world? There are a few electric cars, or crazy bio-fuel conversions now. I'd imaging that there were fuel alternatives in Deadlands, but Spook was the default for a while. I should also be pointed out that Reloaded cleans up a bunch of things that didn't make sense. I guess the idea of spook being developed recently and all of technology being steam powered for 200 years just doesn't make sense anymore.

It should also be noted that there was at least one traditional scientific movement in the Hell on Earth background. It's possible that vehicles using other fuels were a part of this.

As for the assault rifles thing, I agree with you, and will be converting rules for the straight NA and SA rifles when I run. The rational for leaving them out doesn't seem to have come forward. That said, what Platinum said about the differences (or non-differences) between similar weapons is true, so I won't be bothering to convert many weapons, since they can already be covered in Reloaded.

I know its my game so please don't tell me that I can play it how I want to. What I want to know is why I was told that buying the Classic books was a good idea? I don't know now which history to trust; which is canon. I guess Reloaded, but I have to say I feel ripped off.

I'm sorry tou feel ripped off, but I think you are missing the big picture. The Reloaded book starts with some 28 pages of background material, with additional material for arcane characters spread throughout the book. Nearly every book for Classic has an equal amount of background material, which gives a lot more depth and history than a single book can.

So if you're looking for rules for Reloaded, yes, you were ripped off. But you bought the books knowing that they were for two different games (systematically) anyways. But if you bought the books looking for more material to draw from, a deeper understanding of the setting, and a glimpse at material you can convert later if you want, than you made a good buy.

I also want to highlight that Hell on Earth was written while the Weird West was still being written. There are plot weirdnesses and errors because things in the Weird West that needed to be built on hadn't been decided yet. Things like with the Mason Dixon Wall was constructed, or who fired first (although this was written following established events detailed later in Hell on Earth) hadn't been established when the book was first written, so there are going to be some errors throughout. However, everything as a whole matches up, and Reloaded expands upon that rather than simple rehashing it.

28/12/09 Scooter just bought a Deadlands book... In a Japanese Gaming store... And the clerk knew what it was. Awesome.

Hellfire6A wrote:First, I read on this forum it would be a good idea to get Waste Warriors because it had a lot of new weapons that couldn't make it into the HOER book.

The one poster who stated anything like this also said in the same post that he did not have access to his books and was going entirely by memory.

Additionally, the very next post in the same thread said the book was "full of neat history" but otherwise "not terribly useful.

Two basically contradictory opinions were posted back to back, and you chose to follow the one that was admitted to be unsubstantiated. It's not really fair to make anyone else feel responsible for that.

Hellfire6A wrote:Since that time it has been posted that the USA and CSA did not have assault rifle equivalents (in Reloaded).

No, it has not been posted that the USA and CSA did not have assault rifle equivalents. It was posted...

shinryu wrote:3) Noticed there's no generic NA/SA assault rifles, just the XM-21 and the XM-40.

The key word there, italicized for emphasis, is "generic." The decision was made that the armies in the future, the Deadlands future, would not simply be using generic versions of M-16s and AK-47s, so they have the XM-21 and XM-40.

Hellfire6A wrote:Next while reading Iron Oasis I discover that in Classic spook juice was created by Doc Schwartz just months before Judgement Day. In reloaded it was created out of the oil embargo of 1973 and was prevalent worldwide. Which is canon? No biggy, right? Wrong? If spook juice was ubiquitous before the war then vehicles wouldn't need conversion. If the converse is true then it is unlikely that any caches of hidden spook juice would be found outside of "civilization" (meaning Junkyard).

If you read the section in HOE Reloaded that said when spook juice was created, then I can only presume you also read the part that said converters were needed to begin with, but from then on, vehicles were built that ran on it.

Yeah, the origin was changed to make it more ubiquitous, but that's reflected in the book; vehicles don't need converters and spook juice is more common to find. Or more to the point, it now makes sense why spook juice can be more commonly found.

Are there some changes to canon? Yeah, absolutely, it has been more than 10 years after all. But, there are not many changes. Really spook juice is the most "significant" one followed by some minor changes to weapons (like the XMs). Comparatively, the Boise Horror changed in canon during the original run of the Classic books, so it's not like such things didn't occur in those books. Heck, it's part of the reason why the introductory information was written from a first person point of view. That way you could just say...

"Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
"Um, Doc, why are you laughing?"
"I told that dumb jock Librarian I invented spook juice!"
"What? What did he think gas stations had been selling all these years?"
"He thought they still sold... petroleum fuel! BWAH-ha-ha-ha!!!"
"Oh sheesh. You do know this means they are going to send us someone new after he sends in that report, right? Someone who might actually look into how you make the stuff?"
"...crap."

Anyway, the important difference is that the changes for Reloaded were made by choice not by mistake, and so, to clarify, any differences in HOE Reloaded are considered canon for it.

It might have been nice if someone would have said up front that there were canonical changes from Classic to Reloaded before they started putting all the Classic books on sale and saying how they were great for "historical" reference.

Everything after the fact just sounds like justification and excuses. XM-21 is an experimental weapon used by sykers so they can go on extended ops. They weigh 14# and need a str d8 to use. That doesn't sound like a typical assault rifle. I understand the blurb on it in HOER...it just doesn't make sense from a military standpoint.

The XM-40 is just more of the same. 16# and only 20 shots, str d8 but a range of 24/48/96 its like a beefy battle rifle with the range of an assault rifle.

In the blurbs neither weapon is listed as having a grenade launcher...why are they so heavy? Are the engineers in the Deadlands future incompetent?

Militaries don't make weapons like this everyday standard small arms for the troops.

Clint nice Frankenbite. However, the thread you are quoting doesn't bare out your caveat. That thread had 10 responses. Nine responses wholeheartedly stated that you should buy the Classic books and referred to specific books to get (pretty much the choices I made when purchasing). Only SavageOni said don't buy the books. That is one dissenting vote out of 10 and even he says in his post that there are several books that are worth getting.

To top it off this is what Shane said.

PEGShane wrote:At the risk of looking like I'm trolling for sales, I respectfully disagree. The class books in particular have *tons* of background on each Arcane Background that we won't likely ever reprint again.

You're correct that the rules portions aren't useful, but *if* you like reading about how these things came about, I think they're great background that should inspire many adventures and aspects of your campaign.

Just my two cents.

Shane

Where in any of the posts, that I read assiduously, did it say that there was a change in canon because it had been 10 years since the first books were written?

Look I love HOER. I love Savage Worlds. I knew the rules stuff wouldn't be useful, mainly because I have yet to see a conversion for HOE Classic to Reloaded. I am presently trying to read Deadlands Classic and the conversion for it in the hopes that I can understand.

Don't try blowing me off because you think I didn't read the whole thread. I did. I went to the forum expecting to get good advice. I listened to what the game designers had to say about getting the classic books. I followed that advice. Not once in that thread did anyone say there would be changes to canon. Not once did anyone say that the history would be cleaned up because of a 10 year difference in publication. Not until I posted that I found discrepancies. Not until I spent 50 dollars. Not until I am left in the limbo of wondering what is and is not canon.

Most people are not going to be concerned about this. They are just going to play the game and use the material as they see fit. That is cool. That is the way I use the material. I doubt there is a campaign I have run that hasn't been a mash up of some sort.

I would like it if someone would post the major changes to the canon so that when I am reading the Classic books I am not left wondering and wasting my time trying to figure out which is the "right" answer. Or if you are just going to leave it hanging and leave it up to the GMs then say that.

I am favorably impressed with the speed with which accurate and thoughtful answers are given on this forum. Please don't disappoint me by giving me an off the cuff flippant response that assumes that I didn't think about what I was posting or that I don't research before I respond.

Hellfire6A wrote:Not once in that thread did anyone say there would be changes to canon.

Yet repeatedly and often, in the Classic books, they tell you that things are not always as written in the books. Either the NPC sources have it wrong, or it is stuff the PEG staff are still working out. Because they were trying to make the game as awesome as possible.

Hellfire6A wrote:Not until I am left in the limbo of wondering what is and is not canon.

HOER is canon when there is a difference. Clint just clarified that, even though the most recent book has always been dominant for the canon of Deadlands: Hell on Earth.

Hellfire6A wrote:Most people are not going to be concerned about this.

Yeah, I don't sweat the small stuff. Which all of this has been.

Hellfire6A wrote:I would like it if someone would post the major changes to the canon so that when I am reading the Classic books I am not left wondering and wasting my time trying to figure out which is the "right" answer.

MAJOR changes?Sure.The Reckoners showed up and got banished by Hellstrome.Magic is different.Scrapping is very likely to kill you, but you don't need to take the damn meds anymore.

Hellfire6A wrote:Please don't disappoint me by giving me an off the cuff flippant response that assumes that I didn't think about what I was posting or that I don't research before I respond.

Then don't skim the Classic stuff and then start claiming to have done your research. If you had done the research then you would have read them in depth.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk. I naturally am, but I'm actually trying to give you real and serious answers.

"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher.""Not against a Servitor.""... We're all gonna die."

Hellfire6A wrote:It might have been nice if someone would have said up front that there were canonical changes from Classic to Reloaded before they started putting all the Classic books on sale and saying how they were great for "historical" reference.

Shane did say the class books could be useful for "background" material for the Arcane Backgrounds, but that is not the same thing as saying all the Classic books would be great for "historical" reference. That quoted "historical" was never used by anyone from Pinnacle.

You know what though, I will say it right now, so we can just get that out of the way.

The Classic book would be great for historical reference... as long as you understand that any differences in Reloaded take precedence.

What are those differences? We'll get to that in a bit.

Hellfire6A wrote:Everything after the fact just sounds like justification and excuses. XM-21 is an experimental weapon used by sykers so they can go on extended ops. They weigh 14# and need a str d8 to use. That doesn't sound like a typical assault rifle. I understand the blurb on it in HOER...it just doesn't make sense from a military standpoint.

The XM-40 is just more of the same. 16# and only 20 shots, str d8 but a range of 24/48/96 its like a beefy battle rifle with the range of an assault rifle.

In the blurbs neither weapon is listed as having a grenade launcher...why are they so heavy? Are the engineers in the Deadlands future incompetent?

Both weapons weigh 6 lbs. more than their "real world" counterparts. One has an ammunition casting kit in it and the capability to use a completely different propellant, and the other has an integral battery powered gyroscopic compensator to handle the fact it's a .50 caliber assault rifle.

Add that to an M-16 or an AK-47, and I think 6 lbs. is generous.

Hellfire6A wrote:Militaries don't make weapons like this everyday standard small arms for the troops.

We disagree. You can call it "justification and excuses," but we wanted the future weapons of the war of the apocalypse to be future weapons that reflected the world they were designed in.

If you want further proof of this design choice, just look at the other military weapons. The USA is all about high ROF and thoughtfulness while the CSA is all about big damage/big booms and damn the consequences. These assault rifles were actually chosen specifically to be the purest reflection of that. The USA has ROF 4 in an assault rifle and comes with a "back-up plan" just in case. The CSA has a frickin' cannon for an assault rifle, and not only does it need more expensive ammo, but it also needs batteries to use properly.

"Realistic" militaries may not make weapons like this for troops, but we did, not for the troops, but for the stories and style of HOE.

Hellfire6A wrote:Clint nice Frankenbite. However, the thread you are quoting doesn't bare out your caveat. That thread had 10 responses. Nine responses wholeheartedly stated that you should buy the Classic books and referred to specific books to get (pretty much the choices I made when purchasing). Only SavageOni said don't buy the books. That is one dissenting vote out of 10 and even he says in his post that there are several books that are worth getting.

The "Frankenbite" I posted did not come from SavageOni, but from ValhallaGH. Of the 10 posts, one was his, one was SavageOni's, one was a "hey I bought stuff," and one was a reply to a separate question.

But none of that really matters. The point wasn't about the general replies about buying books, but the fact that you specifically referenced a post by one user about one specific book, Waste Warriors.

Your comment I referred to didn't reference any other books or any other posters and it made it sound as if that person was responsible for you buying that books.

I felt that was unfair to that person, and I pointed out the only other post in that thread that specifically referenced that same book you mentioned.

If you want to say your decision to buy that book was also influenced by other generalized comments on "class books," that's perfectly fine. But it was clear which post you were referencing, and I did not feel it was appropriate, even indirectly, to make that person, who admitted to not having access to their books, feel responsible for that decision and your being "ripped off."

Understand, I never thought that was your intent, but that is how it could be taken, and I'm certain that is not how you would want it taken.

Hellfire6A wrote:To top it off this is what Shane said.

PEGShane wrote:At the risk of looking like I'm trolling for sales, I respectfully disagree. The class books in particular have *tons* of background on each Arcane Background that we won't likely ever reprint again.

You're correct that the rules portions aren't useful, but *if* you like reading about how these things came about, I think they're great background that should inspire many adventures and aspects of your campaign.

Just my two cents.

Shane

He said the class books had background on each Arcane Background that we likely won't reprint.

Guess what, he's right.

The issue is that you've found 2 differences in canon so far out of what, 10 books and probably 1500+ pages.

That does not make the above statement or any of the recommendations of the other forum members inaccurate.

Hellfire6A wrote:Where in any of the posts, that I read assiduously, did it say that there was a change in canon because it had been 10 years since the first books were written?

Nowhere... because no one asked if "canon" had been changed in anyway. That thread simply asked if any of the old books would be useful to someone running Reloaded.

That really seems to be the disconnect here. You expected something out of that thread that it didn't provide and no one else expected it to provide.

You said it yourself...

Most people are not going to be concerned about this. They are just going to play the game and use the material as they see fit.

Everyone else in that thread are part of "most people." To them, a minor change or two in canon had absolutely zero effect on whether the material in the old books would be useful for Reloaded.

It was a null factor in the discussion, so it was not ever mentioned.

Hellfire6A wrote:Don't try blowing me off because you think I didn't read the whole thread. I did. I went to the forum expecting to get good advice. I listened to what the game designers had to say about getting the classic books. I followed that advice. Not once in that thread did anyone say there would be changes to canon. Not once did anyone say that the history would be cleaned up because of a 10 year difference in publication. Not until I posted that I found discrepancies. Not until I spent 50 dollars. Not until I am left in the limbo of wondering what is and is not canon.

I would like it if someone would post the major changes to the canon so that when I am reading the Classic books I am not left wondering and wasting my time trying to figure out which is the "right" answer. Or if you are just going to leave it hanging and leave it up to the GMs then say that.

No one is in limbo or left hanging around here. To reiterate what I said earlier but trimmed for clarity...

Clint wrote:Really spook juice is the most "significant" one followed by some minor changes to weapons (like the XMs).

...and so, to clarify, any differences in HOE Reloaded are considered canon for it.

That's really all I can think of at the moment. The origin of spook juice and changes to some weapons (primarily ones from Waste Warriors). If you really want to know the specific weapons, I can probably track them down with a little cross-referencing, but I think it would be pretty obvious in comparison.

And of course, if you come upon something else and are wondering which is the "right answer," then as I said, Reloaded takes precedence.

I am sure it sounds as if I am playing the blame game. I am not. Apparently I read into the aforementioned thread something it was not intended for.

When I was putting historical in quotations I was referring to the fact that this is a fantastical "history" not real. I apologize if anyone thought that I was fallaciously quoting someone. Although I can see how that may have happened.

It seems overwhelmingly odd that of the 30 pages I have read to date of the 1500+ you are talking about I should just happen upon the 30 necessary to come across such blisteringly divergent histories. Oh well.

I like the story line and the histories and with the caveat that Reloaded takes precedence history wise I'll be able to make things mesh properly.

As to the weapons...I'll agree to disagree. Look at the US Army future weapons program. Weight, weight and weight is the bane of any modern weapon system. The Army continues to hunt for a replacement for the M-16 family for that very reason. A six pound addition to the weapon means something on the order of 18 pounds in extra gear to go along with it. Not counting admin/logistics tail. Extra ammo for a hog firing 1200rpm! Or the extra batteries and tools for an electronic gizmo for stabilization.

These weapons would be used by specialized troops not by the common doughboy. PBI small arms are based on lowest common denominator. No military in their right mind would choose to go with weapons that required strength greater than the average person. Both weapons we are discussing have a min str of d8. Not just the added weight (which is bad enough). The Hellstromme Damnation is much more likely to be the type of weapon used by the common foot soldier/rifleman (still too heavy). As the Last War degenerated it is more likely that the various opponents would have looked towards simpler weapon systems. They would have not been looking for more complex systems.

Side note: How does the XM-21 function on full auto? ROF 4 only 30 rounds in a magazine. Does that mean that the shooter can only fire full auto once per magazine? Doesn't seem like this should be a big deal but when each round costs a dollar apiece...?

Hellfire6A wrote:Weight, weight and weight is the bane of any modern weapon system.

Do remember, the Savage weights are a representation of total encumbrance, not simply mass times gravity.

Side note: How does the XM-21 function on full auto? ROF 4 only 30 rounds in a magazine. Does that mean that the shooter can only fire full auto once per magazine? Doesn't seem like this should be a big deal but when each round costs a dollar apiece...?

4 rounds per burst. 30 rounds. 7 bursts with 2 to spare. That's one full ROF 4 automatic firing plus one ROF 3 automatic firing, with a double tap for the third combat round.
20 rounds per Suppressive Fire. One suppressive fire per magazine, with up to ROF 2 regular shooting after that.

Hellfire6A wrote:Weight, weight and weight is the bane of any modern weapon system.

Do remember, the Savage weights are a representation of total encumbrance, not simply mass times gravity.

Side note: How does the XM-21 function on full auto? ROF 4 only 30 rounds in a magazine. Does that mean that the shooter can only fire full auto once per magazine? Doesn't seem like this should be a big deal but when each round costs a dollar apiece...?

4 rounds per burst. 30 rounds. 7 bursts with 2 to spare. That's one full ROF 4 automatic firing plus one ROF 3 automatic firing, with a double tap for the third combat round.20 rounds per Suppressive Fire. One suppressive fire per magazine, with up to ROF 2 regular shooting after that.

I hope you didn't spend too much time on that mathematical mayhem.

I am pretty good at math myself. I kind of already figured that out. My point is. No military in their right mind would produce a weapon with that high rate of fire with such a small magazine/ammo supply. Unlike SW in real life you have to change mags. This would cause a rather inconvenient situation for the gunner and whoever he was trying to cover. That beast is firing 20 rounds a second. 1.5 seconds of fire and then you have to change mags! You'd have to be a serious MG gunner ace to get any sort of effective suppression with that.

The Army, but mostly the Marines have tried to resurrect the automatic rifle for various reasons. Each time it has failed...because it can't provide suppression for a long enough time to be effective. That is why squads have SAWs and LMGs.

Are you trying to tell me that it's not the weight of the weapon...it's how cumbersome it is? What does it have a sail attached to it? That's even crazier than saying it masses 16 pounds and just leaving it at that.

Let's go back to my original argument. Real militaries build weapons and gear to fit the lowest common denominator. A d6 soldier can carry 30 pounds of gear without becoming encumbered. Most Infantry soldiers carry way more than that, even with the lightest load (assault load or fighting load). A fighting load is a bit under 50# or you really start to inhibit a soldiers ability to fight.

Weight is the bane of a light fighter's existence. That's leg infantry, foot soldiers, doughboys or the Poor Bloody Infantry. They carry what they fight with. So tell a rifleman he is going to have to carry a rifle that weighs 16 pounds and that he'll have to carry on the order of 300 to 500 rounds of ammo on top of it for a combat load (that is a load of ammo to adequately feed a beast that fires 1200rpm). Do you know what the term "getting fragged" means? Let's just say it is 300 rounds...that's 35# just for the ammo w/mags! Hope the CO doesn't want us to carry food and water too! Oh or heaven help me...body armor!

If you find my arguments to be less than convincing. I'd recommend FM 21-18 Foot Marches. Chapter 5 should be especially helpful. I'd also recommend TF Devil's Modern Warrior's Combat Load. That is the 82d Airborne (All American) in case you were wondering.

The problem is that this is a game. And, not just a game, this is a game with radioactive mutant priests, robotic automatons with buzz saw arms, and the literary Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse roaming around the ruined landscape.

Know the term "deus ex machina"? Literally translated, it refers to the "god out of the machine". Less literally, though, it refers to the willing suspension of disbelief--our ability to set aside what we know to be true in order to enjoy a piece of fiction.

Yes, you're right: no soldier in their right mind would ever carry a 10+ pound rifle.

But, just the same, an average guy with a sword isn't going to cleave his way through a rampaging automaton. A gunslinger, no matter how fast, isn't going to take down a legion of goons in 6 seconds. Dr. Pepper doesn't cure radiation and milrats aren't as plentiful as you think.

Ask yourself, Do your players really care about this much military technicality? Does it make the game more "Fast, Furious, Fun" for anyone?

If that's what they (and you) like, then maybe you have a right to ask these questions that--to me--don't add much to the game and only deal with minutia. But, if that's what you like, I'd probably posit that you're utterly playing the wrong game--you probably want something more simulationist in nature.

I'm going to guess, though, that if you ask your players, they're going to give a collective shrug and not really care about real-life weapon weights or how many cartwheels a knight in full-plate can do.

There comes a point where reality just gets in the way of fantasy. I think you've found it.

PlatinumWarlock wrote:Know the term "deus ex machina"? Literally translated, it refers to the "god out of the machine". Less literally, though, it refers to the willing suspension of disbelief--our ability to set aside what we know to be true in order to enjoy a piece of fiction.

Actually, deus ex machina refers to when a seemingly unsolvable dilemma is suddenly resolved at the end of a story, by some obviously contrived plot device (i.e., the sort of thing that makes it much harder to willingly suspend your disbelief).

PlatinumWarlock wrote:Know the term "deus ex machina"? Literally translated, it refers to the "god out of the machine". Less literally, though, it refers to the willing suspension of disbelief--our ability to set aside what we know to be true in order to enjoy a piece of fiction.

Actually, deus ex machina refers to when a seemingly unsolvable dilemma is suddenly resolved at the end of a story, by some obviously contrived plot device (i.e., the sort of thing that makes it much harder to willingly suspend your disbelief).

Sorry... Lit major. And now back to your previously scheduled thread.

I was, as well, Cutter. I actually did my undergrad thesis on the inversion of Jungian archetypes in the Elric saga.

The phrase "God out of the machine" refers to the endings of various greek tragedies where someone dressed as a god (or king or other mythological being) would descend via a pulley system and solve everybody's problems before the end of the play.

The "willing suspenssion of disbelief" came about as a modern conceit when reflecting on that weirdness.

But, regardless, this whale of the thread has been an exercise in trying to apply real-world physics and weight ratios to a setting where mutant radiation priests can wield nuclear control rods like lightsabers. There comes a certain point where you just have to say "Let it go, man!"

Hellfire6A wrote:I hope you didn't spend too much time on that mathematical mayhem.

About 30 seconds, including the typing. There was a reason my section chief assigned me the boring but necessary job of logging every fire mission.

I'd be insulted at your assumption that I didn't know a damn thing about military service, except you haven't been in the threads where I've listed my military service. So, I won't be insulted. Instead, I'll assume all the vitriol (and bull) was directed at the ignorant.

Militaries get their gear to fit their lowest common denominator, but what that denominator is varies a lot from military to military. For the real world USA, it's weight and ammo consumption. For the USSR it was maintenance and training (hence the AK-47). For the British Empire, it was mostly cost (which is why some units were using the Brown Bess at the start of WW 1). On and on.
Don't apply your own assumptions to fictional cultures. It will bite your nose off to spite your face.

"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher.""Not against a Servitor.""... We're all gonna die."

Hellfire6A wrote:I hope you didn't spend too much time on that mathematical mayhem.

About 30 seconds, including the typing. There was a reason my section chief assigned me the boring but necessary job of logging every fire mission.

I'd be insulted at your assumption that I didn't know a damn thing about military service, except you haven't been in the threads where I've listed my military service. So, I won't be insulted. Instead, I'll assume all the vitriol (and bull) was directed at the ignorant.

Militaries get their gear to fit their lowest common denominator, but what that denominator is varies a lot from military to military. For the real world USA, it's weight and ammo consumption. For the USSR it was maintenance and training (hence the AK-47). For the British Empire, it was mostly cost (which is why some units were using the Brown Bess at the start of WW 1). On and on.Don't apply your own assumptions to fictional cultures. It will bite your nose off to spite your face.

Obviously you do feel insulted or you wouldn't be using the word "bull" or "vitriol". The only assumption I make about fictional cultures are that they will be consistent within their own storyline. In this case maybe believing that is biting me in the butt. I am not angry. I am not emotionally invested. I have to say I find it humorous that anyone would be. It's just a game. This is a forum that doesn't allow for the nuances of body language and tonality to be applied. I have tried to make my comments as innocuous as possible. (Although I do admit to a little baiting for the purpose of getting people to think and not make knee jerk responses, obviously that isn't working)

V here is another assumption on my part. I figure you at least did a few road marches in Boot. I don't know if you had to carry a PRC or a M60 or SAW. Most times soldiers will have to carry something heavy on a road march along with their regular gear. Did you ever have to go directly into a STX or contact after hauling all that gear for 15 or 20 miles? In the summer? In a swamp? In the desert? Can you imagine if every one of the people in your squad was saddled with a weapon that weighed 16# plus all the additional ammo then you had to carry, an extra claymore or two, a M72/AT4. Or extra belts for the M60/SAW. Plus extra grenades for the grenadier, mortar tube, baseplate, monopod or bipod, ad infinidum. How much time do you think you'd spend cursing the designers of the weapon? The project managers? The Procurement department? The Army? The Officers? Your CO and your 1SG? A lot...and you'd be right to.

All the examples you used still have one thing in common weight. Infantry doesn't like carrying more weight than necessary. That isn't to say there haven't been boondoggles in the past where soldiers were saddled with poor gear, that happens. But, I'd hope that by the late 21st century that wouldn't be a realistic assumption at least not for American forces that had been through decades of war and preparation for war.

Ok. Since we seem to be at a stand off regarding weapon weights in a realistic situation. I will discuss this from the standpoint of being a GM with players that get their knickers in a twist when they are penalized for carrying more than one weapon.

A fighter type in this game is likely to carry a rifle, a sword (melee weapon), some body armor and perhaps a knife. Starting PCs in my games generally get d8s (PC choice I don't dictate) in their critical traits. (The players in my games try for all around competence and don't generally try to min max.) That's 40# load before being encumbered. 16# rifle, 8# sword, 6# for leather armor, 4 magazines (120 rds) 14#, knife 1# (I don't count clothing against players because I believe the weights are supposed to be about encumbrance and clothes generally don't encumber). My players and I don't consider that a over the top amount of gear. But they'd get penalized. That's 45#. That is without water or other things you might carry like multi-tools, tool kits etc.

Is it appropriate to burn another edge (for a trait of d10 or to get Brawny) just so they can carry a moderate load without penalty? That would take away from their overall combat competence.

I like the FFF of SW. I stopped being a simulationist years ago, but I do find myself trying to be an advocate for players on occasion. No this isn't a "realistic" game. It is fantasy/horror. However, my PCs like things to have realistic consistency within the storyline. Weapons that weigh double what they are supposed to just for the sake of chrome and cool is pretty silly. It really doesn't seem realistic for this storyline. Not because it doesn't seem realistic period. It does not seem consistent with the storyline.

V I didn't assume you were or were not in the military. I just believed based on your posts that you weren't following my chain of thought. I don't know if you (or anyone else) looked at FM 21-18. This isn't just a momentary bit of study on my part. I was a Company Commander. I had to keep in mind the kind of gear my soldiers were carrying and had to make that decision based on the mission (METT-T). Sorry you took what I said personally.

I'll admit I don't like to toss out things that I don't like from the rules in any game I play. I usually assume that the designers have made their choices for a good reason. In this particular circumstance I don't believe that 2nd and 3rd order effects were taken into account prior to making this decision. 16# weapons with excessive rates of fire and low ammunition will penalize players unnecessarily. Period. So far the reasoning for that additional weight seems more than a bit sketchy.

When I was in the Army we always said, "Don't reinvent the wheel". If you want to create an assault rifle why make it so different from previous versions? Why make it so different that it penalizes the players? Especially when there is a plethora of weapons from HOE classic that fit the bill nicely and especially when it doesn't seem to be for any reason beyond the cosmetic?

In general, you shouldn’t worry about Encumbrance.Characters will usually carry no more than their charactersthink they actually need. But occasionally it may becomedramatically important—such as during a chase or whenattempting to lug a heavy treasure away from a roaring dragon!When that occurs, use the guidelines below.

(SWD--p. 49)

It's not "dramatically important" to track the player carrying a heavy rifle as they trudge along through the wasteland.

It's not even "dramatically important" to track that same rifleman in a typical combat situation against a few gang-bangers.

It would be "dramatically important" to remember that heavy rifle when everyone's trying to run away from a massive swarm of undead or when trying to run and jump onto a runaway SUV.

So...really...what's the point? Apply the penalty when it's a big deal, forget about it the other 95% of the time. Again, mountains out of molehills.

In general, you shouldn’t worry about Encumbrance.Characters will usually carry no more than their charactersthink they actually need. But occasionally it may becomedramatically important—such as during a chase or whenattempting to lug a heavy treasure away from a roaring dragon!When that occurs, use the guidelines below.

(SWD--p. 49)

It's not "dramatically important" to track the player carrying a heavy rifle as they trudge along through the wasteland.

It's not even "dramatically important" to track that same rifleman in a typical combat situation against a few gang-bangers.

It would be "dramatically important" to remember that heavy rifle when everyone's trying to run away from a massive swarm of undead or when trying to run and jump onto a runaway SUV.

So...really...what's the point? Apply the penalty when it's a big deal, forget about it the other 95% of the time. Again, mountains out of molehills.

Thank you. I am just going to toss the weight. It is ridiculous. That way I don't have to hear a bunch of moaning. Or...I'll just convert some of the Classic rifles.

Hellfire6A wrote:Obviously you do feel insulted or you wouldn't be using the word "bull" or "vitriol".

False.Vitriol, in this context, refers to "caustic". Your post was loaded with caustic words, phrases, and structures. I have found that vitriol is a poor tool for any discussion, so I point it out as a weakness of your post.Bull, in this context, refers to my disagreement with some of the information you presented as fact.

getting people to think and not make knee jerk responses, obviously that isn't working

False. I always think about what I post. And, sometimes, that causes me to post nothing.

Infantry doesn't like carrying more weight than necessary.

True. Unfortunately, it's difficult to determine what the minimum necessary weight is. Weapons? Armor? Communications gear? Sensors? Food and water? At various points, all of those have been "optional" (yes, even weapons - troops always have their own ideas about which weapons are worth carrying and which are junk).

Personally:
I was really surprised to see the M-10 and M-21 cut from the setting. I thought they subtly showcased the differing philosophies of the two nations, especially when you included the M-80 and M-92 into the evaluation.

The changes to the XM-21 surprise me. Dropping the magazine from 50 to 30 was a disappointing surprise, though I'm glad it won't automatically kill the user. (I'm still not sure if the tradeoff is worth it, though I don't recall anyone ever actually using the Classic XM-21.) Making the ghost rock vapor extraction less efficient is a disappointment, and the inefficiency of it when using ghost vapor firing is ... odd to me. By the point where supplies have left you needing to rely upon that option, you're probably better off using the weapons of your enemies. Overall, it seems like a flawed design.

The changes to the M-40 Ripper surprise me. In this case, however, I approve. It's a big beast of a weapon, but a powerful beast. I can see the CSA replacing the M-10 with this weapon - it fits their philosophy (big badda boom) so well. It may not have been the smartest choice, as you point out sixteen pounds is a heavy weapon, but it's a ballsy choice and insanely effective when you shoot something with it.

"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher.""Not against a Servitor.""... We're all gonna die."

I guess I am still confused by your "bull" comment. You state that I have presented certain information as fact and insist in two posts that what I said is bull or inaccurate in your opinion.

The only problem is that you don't refute any specific information you just make a blanket statement. That is really bad form if you are trying to argue a point or debate an argument. I believe that at least in this regard you have failed to make your point. You seem to be relying on your military service as your authority. I respect that, but you don't seem to respect my experience in that regard. So I'll tell you a little about myself.

I have twenty years of service. I served in the Navy on a destroyer. Two tours to the Persian Gulf. The last one to Desert Storm. I was on the boarding party, security force and damage control. I did that for six years and finally tired of spending all my time at sea.

I spent a year and a half in the Air Reserve as a munitions crew chief while I was in college, but I switched to a Army National Guard unit that was closer to home. I was an M1 driver, gunner and TC. I was the PSG and temporarily filled in for the 1SG several times.

As a cadet I was a tank PL and a TIO. That was the Lone Star Division when it deployed to what used to be Yugoslavia.

When I got my commission I went on active duty and spent my first year in the ROK, less than twenty seconds by artillery from the DMZ. I was the Bn Chemo in a Tank Battalion but was chosen as a 2LT to be the assistant S3 and night battle captain due to by years of experience and competence as a Tanker. As the Battle Captain everyone in the TOC answered to me, that included the slice commanders; sappers/engineers and FSOs who were CPTs. From there I went to a Recon/Decon PL job at Hood. I effectively led two platoons when another PL decided to spend all his time drunk. I was then hand picked to take a company XO post with a busted OR, on deployment, because of my supposedly miraculous ability to turn around units with broken equipment. That turned into a promotion to CPT and my first Company Command. I was hand picked for that job four years ahead of my peers. I had responsibility for a company with a battalion's worth of equipment made up of civilians and soldiers (including special detachments/deployments to OIF/OEF) and over 175 personnel.

When a Company Commander in another brigade managed to screw up by the numbers I was hand picked to take his job and turn it around. I did. Not because I am brilliant or superman, but because I love soldiers and I know how to lead. That company went from last in the BDE to first in the BDE in under 8 months.

From there I was hand picked to represent the CG of FT Leonard Wood as the SGS (or adjutant) or mouth piece for any official inquiries, congressional, presidential or even just concerned parents. I was responsible for all taskings for the CGs staff and garrison command, as a CPT. Following that job I was hand picked to be the assistant S3 for an Infantry Brigade. My branch was Chemical. Notice my branch is naturally staff/service support, but I spent most of my time in Combat units.

I was Hellfire 6 actual, Outlaw6A and Phantom6A. I was blessed to have more command time in seven years than most officers get in a 20 year time span. I would have gladly served for 10 more years, but was medically discharged in 2005 after 20 years total service.

I am not saying all this to get a pat on the back or for any sort of recognition. I am saying this because I have a depth of knowledge and experience on the subject that I am talking about that not very many people have.

I also have a Master's Degree in History and have served as an adjunct professor in that field. I am quite familiar with Military History professionally as a soldier and historian as well as a long and abiding love of the subject.

If you feel that what I have to say is bull, that is your right. However, don't imagine that I'll sit back and let it slide. I will challenge your opinion. The US Army officer corps doesn't tend to encourage shy and retiring types.

I am sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way.

If you could ask any of my soldiers they'd all tell you the same thing. I am laid back, I don't get flustered, I take care of my soldiers and I accomplish the mission. They would also tell you not to make me mad; I have been in the unfortunate position of having to back down senior officers. I never once lost my composure or the argument. I don't generally get in who's bigger contests (I am 5'4" ). However, if someone pushes me into a corner, I win.

I really don't see this as some sort of competition. I just see it as a discussion.

Let's just leave it at that, before the mediators ban the discussion and the thread.

As I said earlier I just plan on using some of the Classic rifles in HOER.